中国人自我意识的危机43L---《剑桥中国文学史》本月底出版 作者清一色为美国学者
2013-07-18 kircheis 41905 39 18
文章简介
而传统社会是不培养人的自我意识的，它靠束缚个体的欲望抑制本能的自利。自我意识是现代自由观念的产物，有点像给你开一扇窗户，同时门必须反锁。没有自我意识无真正意义上的自由，或者说那种“自由”不过是低等的自私自利。自我意识是自由的头道菜，没有这份舌尖，自由的筵席是无福消受的。
正文内容
有一个法国节目，挑了几对中青年男女，把他们空降到一个陌生国度，分文不带，办一件事或完成一段旅程。在中国大陆，这些人无论在北京还是在僻塞的乡镇，不花一分钱找吃、住、行都能遇到愿意相助的人，未有一次饿肚子或露宿星空。而在香港，就根本就没人理他们，唯一请他们吃了顿饭的还是位来自大陆的商人。但是-----
在彼此陌路人的现代社会，遵守公共行为规则是让这个无情世界尚能忍受的底线，要做到这一点须克制小小的自私自利，自我意识强的人擅于遮掩，弱的人不加掩饰，因为自我意识与本能自利不是一回事，而是意识到自我与所处环境的关系，也就是说自我意识与属性意识是连在一起的，否则只是本能的自利。
而传统社会是不培养人的自我意识的，它靠束缚个体的欲望抑制本能的自利。自我意识是现代自由观念的产物，有点像给你开一扇窗户，同时门必须反锁。没有自我意识无真正意义上的自由，或者说那种“自由”不过是低等的自私自利。自我意识是自由的头道菜，没有这份舌尖，自由的筵席是无福消受的。
传统社会不强化自我意识，是因为那玩艺一产生，人的本真就消失了。这种东西必须在西方长期生活才能看清，现代人的自我意识是以本真换取的，并不是免费的。已经获取现代人集体优越感的社会，是以鄙夷本真为起点的，时常将本真当作愚昧像泼脏水一样连同里面的婴儿一起扔掉。早在十九世纪末，已经过渡到陌路人社会的西方人，带着他们已被驯化出的集体优越感，来到未经驯化的“东方”，在蔑视一举一动都与他们不同、尤其缺乏自我意识的土著之时，也意识到对方身上的本真自己是完全、永远地失去了。
记得数年前我偶然落到法国电视台的一个娱乐节目上，因为涉及中国就看下去了。节目叫《北京快车》，就是挑几对法国中青年男女，把他们空降到一个陌生国度，让他们身上分文不带，办一件事或完成一段旅程。节目的目的一是看法国人到什么都不懂（包括语言）的他世界怎么应对困难（没钱更加剧了生存困境），二是看这个陌生国度的人对需要帮助又不能付钱的外国人什么态度（在法国，类似思路的电视节目不少，特别喜欢享受“东方”的大度）。他们在中国大陆跑了不少地方，有现代化的城市也有贫困的乡村，无论在北京还是在僻塞的乡镇，他们不花一分钱找吃、住、行都遇到了愿意相助的人，未有一次饿肚子或露宿星空，尽管相遇的中国人很少对陌生人面带微笑（未经私行为与公共行为分离的驯化，而非本质恶劣）。尤其在穷乡僻壤，穷得掉渣的一群人真相信他们身上分文没有（其实他们身上备了以应万一的钱），每人拿出自己身上的所有，凑了一笔钱给他们。而他们不但继续装作没钱，还对这群中国土人不懂得给他人留有私秘空间、围观和跟着他们感到厌烦。这个节目的下一集到了香港，土人的毛病全都没有了，土人的好处也就没有了，没有人围观更没有跟着他们，根本就没人理他们，吃、住、行免费是找不到的，唯一请他们吃了顿饭的还是位来自大陆的商人（我从口音听出来），夜晚他们只能露宿街头。
吃透了西方社会的风度礼节外壳及薄情寡义内核的人，再回头看那个还存有一些本真的“东方”社会，会对那些因缺乏自我意识而随时随地露出小我的人群抱有一份宽容，并且也知道改掉这些毛病取而代之的将是什么，并不是从理想到理想的。几个月前我在国内某机场排队办登机手续，队伍长长的，但窗口多，办得不算慢，排的人秩序井然。这时我看到一个乡下老人大包小件地从队伍边上走过，旁若无人直奔队头。我一把拉住他，告诉他人人都在排队，从边上走到前面是不行的。我从他不好意思的憨笑及马上退后看，他这时才明白排进这个陌生人的队伍是必须遵守的规则。现在经常在公共场合一遇不顺大闹特闹的人，并非这些尚浸在传统社会的所谓土人，而是满脑子“权利”浮藻的城市大小暴发户，属于没有自我意识消化不了自由的残障儿。
我后来在候机厅又碰到一个农人旅行团，像是集体去什么地方玩，他们在相对安静的候机厅里扎堆打牌，就像在自己家里玩一样，毫不掩饰地大声说笑。我上前提醒他们这是公共场所，他们没有不高兴，马上就放低声音了，但过了一会又忘了。我从这些尚未走出传统社会的农人身上并未看到绝对的自私自利及不可救药，而是未经驯化。
我发觉这两件事有一个共同特点，就是当事人均凭本能和习惯理解和处理自我与外部世界的关系，不懂现代社会在所有连通的外表下自我与外界是隔绝的，因为不懂这层隔绝，也就不明白彼此隔绝的个体靠什么东西维系在一起，这时的“一起”就是公共场合的统一规范。认识到这一点，你再审视西人便会发觉他们在外的一举一动、一颦一笑都是把握分寸的，连潇洒无羁都由内心导演，无意识的任性要远远少于“东方”人，所有的努力都意在保持隔绝。他们自己社会有这种保险暗锁，再在“禁闭室”里喷洒自由香精装点，却把香精推销给毫无保险暗锁的“东方”，让香一熏便陷入乱世的人们自贱到底。
传统社会的本真除了来自自我意识弱，还缘于人并不需要具备两套行为：私行为与公共行为，那时一个人一生行为都不必在陌生世界中完成，时常生命平方不超出数公里。将私行为与公共行为截然分开，是工业化、城市化、市民化的结果，需要一两代以上的市民生活，更需要意识到这一点的上层建筑有意驯化。
读到这里，我们已明白中国文人们艳羡了上百年、并痛恨自己贫而莫有的东西实际是什么，并大致知道了获取的路径，下面我们就来看看这两个西学宝典里的真传，除了为现代自由社会奠基，还有另一面，在早有宗教排他传统的西方，统治集团利用被悉心强化了的自我意识和集体优越感两百年来对他文明实施了致命打击。
集体优越感对内是个好东西对外则未必，长居西方的“东方”人初尝风度礼节外壳后，渐渐地会尝到其苦涩的内核，即集体优越感与对外的狭窄性和攻击性时常成正比，可谓水涨船高。尝透的人甚至会出现逆反心理，觉得与其受这种转着弯的坏，还不如与直接坏的人在一起，不但坏的程度不一样，受创的程度也小。如果说自我意识是现代“个体自由”社会必不可少的内在平衡，当它凝缩成集体优越感对外则成了一把利刀，在没有深厚文化传统的西方（因宗教信仰造成历史的断代），经营集体优越感除了用维护公共行为标准这一只脚，还靠制造认同和排斥、确立外部对立面这另一只脚。这种优越感有别于自古先进文明对后进文明的天然优越感，它不是保守型的而是进攻型的，是专门针对对立面设计的一条踩踏的精神轨道，是与征服世界相辅相成的导演世界的一部分。这条轨道随着征服的脚步一直铺进异文明的心脏，在几乎所有没有相应集体优越感自卫的地方引发了逆向种族主义。百多年来中国的“西化精英”均逃不掉这条精神轨道，因为这是进入另一个世界的门槛，不知不觉中甚至在潜意识里就被引上去了，日本人挤进统治者“俱乐部”先作打手也是这条精神轨道的牵引。
这把利刀将世界一分为二，一边是“野蛮的”，一边是“文明的”，如果说工业化的领先与军力的强大还不足以折断一个被打败的文明的精神脊梁，这场史无前例的切割将失败者彻底打翻在地，在每一个文明的身体上都挖了一个几乎永远合不上的大缺口。一百多年来，是中国上层建筑近乎一致地接受华夏文明的道德卑贱，致使这个文明一步步土崩瓦解，而接受的一大部分理由，并不是军事与工业的落后，而是来自这个致命缺口。因为在西方集体优越感的心理攻势下，我们在潜意识里接受了深及根本的自我否定。这是一种没有回归路的自我否定，这条惯性的精神轨道在人们无知无觉中输入了正面和负面思维，在这一思维分水岭的主导下，客观理性自动放弃了自卫，世间罕见的逆向偏见成为习惯性的思维导向，左右着人们对自身及对外界的判断能力，颠倒着人们的视野。
关键是人们对这种心理攻势毫不觉察，更不知导演舆论的手是有预谋和有组织的，被放在这个手术台上的“东方”不但遭受军事占领、经济割据而且在无意识中遭受心理裂变。西方统治集团暗中运用“移除集体优越感”（一些传统文化深厚的文明天然具有的）和“营造集体优越感”（制造认同和排斥）分裂他人版图，在世界范围内经营优越感和卑贱感以便导演世界，为征服铺路。而这需时漫长的心理策划多为被征服者所不察。香港公民对大陆人的嫌弃（所谓香港认同），台湾人称自己中国人的心理障碍，看起来是自发的，实为这条精神轨道的捕获。“集团”干这一手老到了，靠心理操纵可以让某地人将卑贱当成尊贵，表面看是嫌弃对立面没有自己已经学到的礼数（标准统一的公共行为），其实是界之意识在作怪。
前不久我看到一部加拿大电视台的旅游纪录片，这类片子在西方一般都有一种程式，我称之“分裂程式”，专用于“敌对国”，只要是他们视为对手的国度，哪怕是游山玩水，也事先套上这个框架。因此这部片子事先就有导向，即必须将香港与大陆分开，一如这套旅游纪录片的上集走访加拿大华人聚集的温哥华，谈到华人美食，挑出一家记者眼里最好的中餐馆，猜猜大厨是何方人士？一个日法混血儿。这个头衔是不能落到纯粹中国人头上的，尤其是大陆人，除非是暗中投靠或公开反华的大陆人。只要弄明白我说的这种“分裂程式”，对他们走到哪儿会怎么做基本上就能看清话语下面的套路。
果然一到香港，记者先邀来一个引路人：英国路透社驻港记者。我们从这一套制造话语的技巧会发现，牢控话语权是从严把解释权开始的，来香港旅游找一个指导，不找香港人，解释香港的权力还得在英国人手里。他们对中国大陆的报道就更是如此了，无论什么领域，哪怕是纯技术领域，比如考古，最终的解释权也不会交给中国专家。我新近在法国电视五台看到一部讲中国古文明的电视纪录片，凭良心说已经非常正面了（只是镜头一回到当代中国老是对准又穷又脏的角落），以前从没看过类似的，想必是为了解答很多法国人对中国“突然发迹”的疑惑，因为在长年欺瞒下，中国可是贫穷落后集大成者，怎么变成有钱主儿了?所以这部片子的宗旨是承认中国古文明还是发达的。但是讲中国商、周、秦，中国专家只对某些具体考古细节有解释权，总体解释权不是交由日本人就转由法国人。
给人最后的印象是你们虽然古文明不同凡响，但你们就像如今的埃及人或已经消失的玛雅人一样，对埃及和玛雅古文明的研究、解释还得靠我们西方人。这种独断中国人一般都看不到，因为很有技巧，然而却是“独”到根上、“霸”到极点的，西方的自由多由这类“独与霸”掌控框架。独断解释权，是西式独裁非常巧妙的掩蔽所，此一保证核心权力的方法有点像以公共行为标准掩藏和保护私行为，民主形式和言论自由则类似公共行为规则，人人尽量遵守，但并不触及核心权力，前者的宽容、开放、分享、透明、相对和理性丝毫不影响后者的狭隘、封闭、独霸、隐匿、绝对和非理性。西人本性的这种极端两重性几乎完整地延伸到其体制内，也是我们与西方交手两百年，始终被蒙在鼓里的，以致看人把只据个体表面的公共行为视为全部，看社会也见外不见里，甚至根本不知里的存在。当然这种里外双层统治模式并不是哪里都能行得通的，须有百姓自觉向强权解释权靠拢的历史传统和社会基础。
话说回来，那个被赋予解释权大任的英国记者果然配合默契，马上按“分裂程式”为纪录片定好框架，还把自己的香港女友带来从旁佐证。香港女人一露面见加拿大记者仍称她中国人，颇为不悦地特意强调自己是香港人不是中国人。她大概不知道这正是西人眼里自我意识薄弱的表现，人家张口闭口香港人是为了对中国下刀子，骨子里不会把你看成中国人之外的人（九七拒给香港人英国护照就是明证）。蓄意营造香港人的集体优越感（相对于中国大陆），可是深藏祸心的，一如同样在做的对台湾人、藏人、蒙人（日本人投资的那部有关成吉思汗的电影获奥斯卡最佳外语片提名是在谋略之内的，可不是搞什么艺术，而且各个环节，哪怕是跨国的，都是配合好的）集体优越感的经营，西方各类“国际”传媒及文化机构不惜人力物力正做着经久不息的接力。若不采取相应办法阻止这场蓄谋已久、从未停息、不达目的不罢休的心理割据战争，败是迟早的事。
为了让自己的卑贱行为具有道德理由，这位香港女人开始比他的英国情人走得还远地数落起大陆的不是，无非是食品“有毒”（特别强调香港的食品健康，好象香港的农副产品不是由大陆供应）、空气“有毒”（好象大陆与香港不是连山带水）、产品造假（忘了香港是一大源头）之类已变成“副歌”的那档子事。
越是深嵌中国人弱点的“精英”（自我意识弱），越是与审视对象（对内对外）拉不开距离，视野才如此狭窄，观点也才如此激越。上述那个自以为已加入西人行列的香港女人，学“自我意识”也只学到踩踏自己人的水平，并未真正学到西人的自我意识，那种自我意识是以个体与群体的纽带为思维轨道的，怎会在外人面前如此贬损自己人？
在这般暗地进攻下，自身强化自我意识与集体优越感就成了与军事自卫同等重要的自卫和自强武器。两个世纪的动荡和乱世（外部强权主导或旁引的外抑内耗），这个国家不但身体被抽空，精神也被吸食殆尽，一流思想家被边缘化，上层建筑变成三、四流模仿者的盛宴，加上资本化本身就是要打掉一个文明的精神龙头，三十年计划生育又造成优质人口锐减，致使智力弱化、精神萎糜。
传统社会靠束缚个人欲望来建构社会群体，在私欲泛滥的现代社会若自我意识未被强化，则会出现社会混乱、物欲横流的现象，让本质无序的资本竞争社会显得更加无序。中国社会就处在这个节骨眼上，传统道德教化土崩瓦解，本来就弱的自我意识不但未被强化还随着沦陷的传统而流失了。没有自我意识自律又道德沦丧的社会最可怕的还不是社会无序，而是上层建筑缺乏自我意识，被自利本能吞没，导致甄选机制倒转，陷入恶性循环，高品质的人被淘汰，体制逐渐被无能鼠辈盘踞，责任、原则、戒律形同虚设，忠诚扫地，奸佞当道。
外部挤压加内部蛀空，文明的解体步伐还将加快，当上层集体无意识进入民间潜意识层面，则无论审美权、道义权追回与否，皆无可挽救。
请支持独立网站，转发请注明本文链接：
http://www.guancha.cn/bianqin/2013_07_18_159274_2.shtml
郭济士：西方歌颂马拉拉背后的伪善洗脑2013-07-19 15:55 环球网 50 字号：TT
香港《明报》7月19日文章 原题：西方歌颂马拉拉背后的伪善洗脑 就在勇敢少女马拉拉上周到联合国总部捍卫妇女教育权利后不到一周，巴基斯坦塔利班高层成员拉什德突然高调发表致马拉拉的公开信，声称对她去年遭枪击重伤感到震惊，声言塔利班并不反对包括女孩在内的任何人接受教育，马拉拉之所以成为塔利班枪手攻击目标，是因为她推动反塔利班的抹黑宣传，还呼吁她返回巴基斯坦到任何伊斯兰女子学校，接受伊斯兰和帕什图文化教育。
塔利班公开信文宣反击
正如不少评论指出，拉什德根本没有在信中道歉，不过他声称希望事件从未发生，恐怕也是实情——因为马拉拉中枪不死，反而成了西方政府和舆论大力抨击巴基斯坦塔利班的最有力文宣武器。拉什德发表公开信，对象根本就不是马拉拉本人，而是试图作出一次以各地穆斯林为对象的文宣战反击。
马拉拉捍卫妇女教育权利的决心，值得举世称许支持;激进分子针对儿童和教育设施的攻击也应当强烈谴责。但西方政客领袖乃至主流舆论在颂扬马拉拉的背后，是否也隐含着政治抽水潜台词？
西方选择重视请缨救世
身在英国的巴基斯坦专栏作家Assed Baig，最近便谈到西方政府和传媒在颂扬马拉拉背后的虚伪。他提到另一名鲜有西方政客及传媒认识的伊拉克少女——死时只有14岁的Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi。2006年，5名驻伊美兵轮奸了她，之后还杀了她和家人，包括年仅6岁的妹妹。然而不像马拉拉，没有任何以她名字命名的国际纪念日，联合国从没有提过她，英国前首相布朗也未有像对马拉拉般誓言要为她做些什么。
西方政客舆论对马拉拉的重视，跟对这些年来入侵伊拉克阿富汗令当地妇孺受害，乃至目前仍持续以无人机在巴基斯坦等地执行轰炸不惜滥杀无辜的态度，确有天渊之别。 这种选择性重视的背后，亦确实有着一套洗脑式的文宣潜台词：为了拯救妇孺，帮助像马拉拉这样的女孩，北约和美军应继续在巴基斯坦等地执行军事行动。 尽管殖民主义时代早已结束，但到现在西方社会仍保留着19 世纪的white man's burden思维(美其名是帮殖民地化外之民迈向现代化文明，实际是假借道德之名去伸张自身利益)。 马拉拉的事迹，正好完美地套入这套思维里——马拉拉对抗极端伊斯兰而被逼害，结果由西方充当白武士拯救，得以延续教化斗争。Assed Baig认为马拉拉的论述已经被西方白人救世主之情意结骑劫，也并非毫无道理。
《剑桥中国文学史》是剑桥大学出版社的系列国别文学史之一，该系列以1375年为界分为上、下两卷，各五十万字，分别由宇文所安、孙康宜主编，作者涵括十几位美国汉学界的著名学者，如柯马丁、康达维、田晓菲、宇文所安、艾朗诺、傅君劢、林顺夫、奚如谷（上卷）；孙康宜、吕立亭、李惠仪、商伟、伊维德、王德威、奚密（下卷）等等。全书以编年而非文体的结构方式介绍了从上古的口头文学、金石铭文一直到1949年中华人民共和国建国前夕中国文学三千年的发展历程，和中国文化中关于写作的故事——写作不仅是国家统治的工具，同时也是外在于国家的文化媒介。各章因作者各异其趣的学术与表达风格而呈现出不同的叙述面貌。
《剑桥中国文学史》在撰写过程中，整个团队在翻译书名和用语上投入了大量精力，可惜的是，这部分努力无法在中译本里展现。
生活·读书·新知三联书店引进出版《剑桥中国文学史》简体中文版
博尔赫斯曾虚构了一个名叫彼埃尔·梅纳德的19世纪作家，让他用异国的语言把塞万提斯的名作《堂·吉诃德》重写了一遍。“那是一种有意地制造时代错误和胡乱归属的技巧。”博尔赫斯写道。
一群美国汉学家在一场重写中国文学史的“接力赛”里，践行了博尔赫斯的理念。“博尔赫斯的《堂·吉诃德的作者彼埃尔·梅纳德》与我们一路同行。”在即将于内地出版的《剑桥中国文学史》(C am bridge H istoryof C hinese Literature)上卷导言里，主编之一、哈佛大学教授宇文所安写道。
在这部定位为“文学文化史”的文学史新著中，参与写作的十几位美国汉学家都在寻找上述这位“彼埃尔·梅纳德”的蛛丝马迹，并试图让其显形。他行踪诡秘，分饰多角，从公元前两千年晚期的早期铭文一直穿越到2005年的网络文学(“简体中文版”截至“1949年中华人民共和国成立前夕”)，尤其是印刷术普及前的文学。耶鲁大学教授孙康宜撰写“明代前中期文学”一章，“彼埃尔·梅纳德”乔装化作“嘉靖八才子”之一李开先。
与彼埃尔·梅纳德惊心动魄地重新写《堂·吉诃德》一样，这部全明星阵容写就的文学史也充满了激情与气魄、开拓与洞见，更打破许多在中国历史文化传统中因积重太深而难以跳脱的史观。它能让我们重新审视汉字铸就的文明，且让我们从一个个文本开始。
清一色美国学者
宇文所安、柯马丁、王德威、商伟……这群人聚一起，跑一场接力赛。
“彼埃尔·梅纳德法则”适用于中国几千年的文学史吗？
“以往的文学史上只告诉我们《梧桐雨》、《汉宫秋》是元杂剧。但很少有人知道，它们的定稿并不在元朝，直到16世纪明朝，李开先才将它们改写成现在的样子。我们应该给李开先记上一大功。”孙康宜告诉记者，中国文学史其实是对过去持续不断地重写(rewriting)。
从《诗经》的阐释到屈原形象的塑造，从苏轼对陶潜诗歌的改写到杜甫的后世生命(afterlife)，“彼埃尔·梅纳德”的权力很大。他根据自己的兴趣和价值取向保存、组合文本，亦根据自己的观念重塑前人的文本。
而在以往的中国文学史框架里，则很难找到“彼埃尔·梅纳德”的踪迹。中国社会科学院文学研究所研究员、古代文学研究室主任蒋寅认为，这与中西方看问题的方式密切相关。“我们过去研究文学，会把文学作品当作既定的事实来接受，作品就是作家的创造物。”而西方汉学家却更强调文本的概念，一个过去的文本流传至今，经过了一系列复杂的中介过程，“跟作者的关系也变得不再那么确定”。
本月底，由宇文所安和孙康宜共同主编的《剑桥中国文学史》将由生活·读书·新知三联书店引进出版。缘起要追溯到十年前。
2003年10月的一天，孙康宜收到一封来自剑桥大学出版社《剑桥文学史》系列总编辑琳达·布瑞(Linda Bree)的邮件，希望她能主持编写一部“单卷的、畅销书样子的剑桥中国文学史”。在此之前，该系列已出版了三本国别文学史，分别是《剑桥俄罗斯文学史》(1989年)、《剑桥意大利文学史》(1996年)以及《剑桥德国文学史》(1997年)，均受到读者的热烈欢迎。
“重写文学史，尤其是中国文学史可能吗？”孙康宜对记者说，收到信后她的心情极为复杂。一方面，从1966年就开始策划的《剑桥中国史》经历半个世纪的编写，已经形成一套多达十余卷的完整系列，却一直没有《剑桥中国文学史》；另一方面，让她兴奋的是，《剑桥文学史》以年代来划分文学史。在她的印象里，不管是王国维的《宋元戏曲史》还是鲁迅的《中国小说史略》，经典文学史还是以文体为主。在欧美汉学界，同样只有中国诗史、中国词史、中国小说史、中国戏剧史的观念，缺乏全面的文学史思维。“就连美国大学聘请文学教授的方式，都是以文类为主。我虽然研究的领域很宽，但职位的tag(标签)是‘古典诗歌’。”孙康宜是耶鲁大学首任M alcolG .Chace‘56东亚语言文学讲座教授，主要研究领域是中国古典文学、抒情诗、性别研究等。她担心，做汉学一旦习惯于专攻某种文体，会忽视同一时代的其他文体。再者，中国文学史较俄、德、意的体量都要庞大得多，单卷本怕是难以容纳。
孙康宜
未想，出版社方面回复，愿意单独为中国文学史破例，不限于单卷。工程量庞大，孙康宜开始邀约同在美国的汉学家朋友。让她意想不到的是，在邀请邮件发出的两天内，包括宇文所安、柯马丁、王德威、商伟在内的顶尖学者纷纷欣然应允。
“我们真的非常需要这样一本书。”谈到参加的动机，普林斯顿大学东亚研究系主任柯马丁(M artin K ern)回忆说，2001年哥伦比亚大学出版社曾出版过一部《哥伦比亚中国文学史》(Colum bia H istory of Chinese Literature)，但这部以文类而非年代为基础的文学史是由40到50篇小文章拼凑而成。“文章之间没有关联，也体现不出历史的叙事性。”柯马丁为此专门写了一篇书评，对“论文合集”式的文学史严辞批评。
有鉴于此，孙康宜希望读者能像看小说一样，从头到尾，由兴趣驱使来阅读《剑桥中国文学史》。她对读者群的界定亦是———普通但有一定知识储备的读者，并希望此书成为西方世界东亚历史和文学课程的本科教科书。
最终，孙康宜召集了17位美国汉学家参与编撰。于是，一家欧洲老牌大学出版社，聚集了“清一色”的美国大学教授撰稿团队。柯马丁解释说，这恰好说明了当今西方汉学的现实格局。尽管他在德国科隆大学取得汉学博士，但目前欧洲几乎没有研究中国古代文学的学者，唯一一个在德国法兰克福大学做古典文学研究的年轻教授还是他在普林斯顿教出的学生。而在出土文献研究方面，欧洲汉学则实力更强。“尤其是德国，在语文学(Philology)方面优势明显。这是因为德国人文主义传统的高潮就是语文学。”
孙康宜说，她也曾考虑过老友顾彬，“但他在写德文的中国文学史，自顾不暇，所以不可能有时间来帮我。”至于瑞典知名汉学家罗多弼，孙康宜考虑到他对写文学史不感兴趣，因此也未邀请。“不是欧洲和美洲的差异问题，而是这群人适不适合聚一起跑一场接力赛。”
打破按朝代分期
柯马丁执意“先秦文本”要写到西汉，王德威重新界定“现代”开端。
既然是接力赛，起承转合节奏的把握、每位作者在何处接棒，便成了首要问题。
王德威
对于文学史写作的分期问题，孙康宜坦言，尽管每一位研究中国文学的学者都知道，朝代分期法并不能尽述文学史的变化轨迹，但积重难返，绝大多数现行文学史都在沿用这一做法。
也有打破按朝代分期的例子，如目前国内高校广泛采用的北京大学教授袁行霈主编的《中国文学史》，便是依据“三古七段”说(即将中国文学史分为上古期、中古期、近古期，在“三古”之内，又可以细分为七段)。
但《剑桥中国文学史》做得更彻底。首邀撰写首章的柯马丁，在第一封回信中就明确向孙康宜表示，“入伙”的前提是他负责的“早期中国文学”必须包括西汉，否则宁愿不写。在他看来，通常说的“先秦文本”实际是在西汉末期的“经典化”过程中形成的，之前甚至还未出现“书”和“作者”的概念。柯马丁亦从考据角度指出，在现行文学史中被当作早期文本传播中断的罪魁祸首———秦始皇“焚书坑儒”，只是“有利于建构儒家学者身份认同”的传统说辞。恰恰相反，所谓“焚书”前后，经典学问的传承并无任何改变。
孙康宜原计划以1400年作为上、下卷的分水岭。因为“《剑桥文学史》系列中已出的俄、德和意大利文学史，大都是从1400年左右开始。而在英国，这一年著名的乔叟去世了，薄伽丘的《十日谈》也差不多出现。”但落实到1400年的中国时，她意识到刻意地追求1400年这条系列“起跑线”对历史反倒不忠实，“等于把朱元璋斩腰断掉了。”最终，下卷择定1375年(明朝开国年为1368年)为起始，理由是“这一年朱元璋处决了诗人高启，开启了文禁森严、残酷诛杀的洪武年代，从元朝遗留下来的一代文人基本上被剪除殆尽。”
现当代文学史名家、哈佛大学教授王德威则重新界定了“现代”的开端。他没有将“五四”运动作为中国现代性的开端，也没用1840年，而是选择了1841年这个特殊的年份。这一年仲夏，学者、诗人龚自珍暴卒于江苏当阳书院。用王德威的话说，“本章无意将‘五四’文学革命及其后续事件视为一种单向的线性发展，而着力将中国文学的现代性视为一个漫长且曲折的过程，并将其开端上溯至十九世纪中叶。”
对于上述历史细节的截取和放大，孙康宜认为，这让文学史的叙事更富戏剧性，像极了电影的分镜头。她告诉南都记者，最近哈佛大学已在着手策划一套文学史，参与负责中国现代文学史的王德威便是用这种方法来设计。孙康宜也受邀写作了“台湾白色恐怖”时期的文学史分册，“一上来就是‘二二八’事件，国民政府派遣军队屠杀台湾人民的一幕。”
一部有个性的文学史
解构主义的底子、文学文化史的写法、文学史论的论证……
今年，孙康宜在耶鲁教书已走入第32个年头。1982年，当她到达耶鲁时，在耶鲁任教满10年的宇文所安恰好转去了哈佛。上世纪80年代的美国，受德里达来美讲学的影响，解构主义取代了新批评的支配地位，而耶鲁则成为美国解构主义文学批评重镇。孙康宜说，包括哈罗德·布鲁姆在内的解构主义“耶鲁四人帮”都曾是宇文所安的老师，所以“宇文所安从上学到读博、教书一条流水线下来，基本是‘耶鲁的产品’。”而当孙康宜从普林斯顿大学的结构主义阵营“投奔”耶鲁后，不知不觉也受到解构主义影响——— 文学不再是“读者”和“作者”的封闭结构。
不同于哈罗德·布鲁姆对经典化(cannonization)包括个别作家的强调，在《剑桥中国文学史》中，孙康宜更强调一种倾向(tendency)或者潮流(trend)，如更关注过去的文学是如何被后世过滤并重建的。
2008年，宇文所安在《读书》杂志发表了《史中有史》这篇文章，重点分析了《剑桥中国文学史》的史观问题：一部文学文化史(history of literary culture)，既强调文本的历史性，又强调历史的文本性。
为了说明“作者和读者是在对写作和阅读来说都不可或缺的假象文学史叙事之中写作和阅读的”这句颇有些拗口的判断，宇文所安做了一则情景假设：如果你发现某首唐诗实际作于明代，或者某首伊丽莎白时代的十四行诗作于上世纪30年代，你会觉得受骗上当。“诗本身没有变化，但是你理解诗的方式却改变了。”
中国社会科学院文学研究所研究员、古代文学研究室主任蒋寅看到这篇文章后，颇受启发，并推荐给他在社科院文学所的学生阅读。“西方汉学家非常关注文本生成的过程，所谓文本自身的历史。而在国内，特别是古典文学研究领域，我们是把文学作品当作既定的事实来接受。文学作品就是作家的创造物，如同鸡生蛋一样。”
蒋寅跟记者解释，在“文学作品”和“文本”两种差异化表述的背后，是中西方学界对历史现象认识立场的不同站位。国内学者看待本国的历史或文学知识，往往根据多少年积累下来的根深蒂固的认识。譬如讲到屈原，自然会想到《史记》里的《屈原本传》和贾谊《吊屈原》里的叙述。“根据本国人的修史或写史的方式，我们就会确信这样的事情不可能是虚构的。”
而在柯马丁的分析中，屈原则是“为不可忍受的绝望所驱动的诗人原型”。而《离骚》“从一开始，就被视为假定作者屈原的悲剧性传记。自贾谊《吊屈原》以来，这篇文本就被看作俊杰之士被忽视、被放逐的哀歌。有汉一代，刘安、司马迁、刘向、扬雄、梁竦、班固、王逸等人，全都为这一阐释推波助澜。”
对于“文学文化史”所包含的历史知识的不确定性，孙康宜则强调，因为最初的读者群是英文读者，所以这种做法完全符合西方人的认知。另一方面，她认为，中国受众对不确定性的排斥，与“euhem erization”(神话历史化)有关。“中国人喜欢把‘虚构’的东西提升为‘历史’———例如尧舜禹的‘历史’故事。好像确定性就找到了安全感。所以有些汉学家以为中国文明是‘euhem erization’的最标准例证。”孙康宜也很清楚“文学文化史”的软肋，这种主义强调理论色彩的叙事，失去了文学以欣赏为主的乐趣。
尽管统一在“文学文化史”的大框架下，但《剑桥中国文学史》毕竟是一部叙事性文学史，每位作者的风格差异性较大。在蒋寅看来，康达维负责的“东汉至西晋”和田晓菲负责的“从东晋到初唐”两章就比较符合一般文学史的写法，以提供给读者完整可靠的知识为目的。而柯马丁负责的“早期中国文学”则超出一般常识性知识较多，写法更像文学史论。“文学史严格意义上讲是叙述的，被大家接受的公认的知识，所以是不需要论证的，但是一部有个性的文学史一定需要论证。”
关于早期中国文学分期（口述柯马丁）
在《剑桥中国文学史》里，我们不说“先秦两汉”，两汉当然是传统的概念，但我觉得西汉和东汉非常不一样，所以我这一章的分期是从商到西汉末期。这种分期是我十多年来的研究心得。
1996年我在科隆大学拿到汉学博士，第二年赴美，开始研究西汉。我发现“文”在早期中国意为“作为文化的书写”，最初指自然界、人类活动各种形式的“纹”。帝国时期之前，“文”不仅用来指“文章”，还广泛用于指称“文化成就”，特别是用来指礼仪举止、仪式表演，包括音乐与物质装饰中的“纹”。只是到了西汉后期，“文”才主要用来指称“书写”。这种转变不仅在于词义的变化：它象征了文化核心从仪式性向文本性表达的整体迁移，它导致了书面文本的文化史的产生，并同时伴随着维系这种书面文本机构的产生，其中最重要的便是帝国的官僚体制与文官考试制度。有趣的是，好几个不同领域的汉学研究者用自己的专业和资料，得出了同样的结论。
在西汉末年，汉成帝让刘向整理、校勘宫廷藏书，编成皇家图书馆目录《别录》。公元前6年左右，他的儿子刘歆将《别录》删节改做《七略》；公元1世纪末，班固进一步将《七略》删改为《汉书·艺文志》。《别录》绝对不是一种客观、完整的记录，绝对是对文本遗产采取了一种选择性的、规范化的视角。因为根据所有的战国出土文献，大概90%都没有对应的传世本，只有少数作品与《汉书·艺文志》有关。
关于“焚书坑儒”
我专门写了一本《秦始皇石刻———早期中华帝国表征中的文本与意义》，2000年出版的。那时候我查了所有关于“焚书坑儒”的资料，发现这是东汉的一个说法。司马迁《史记》之前，没有任何文献提到这次事件；公元1世纪卫宏《尚书序》(已佚)之前，没有任何文献认为儒生是这次事件的受害者。据目前所知，谴责暴秦和“焚书坑儒”最早出自317年面世的伪造的孔安国本《尚书》。第二，各种早期文献均记载说秦廷任命“博士”研习经典。公元前213年，博士获准垄断经典的研究、教授工作，或许还可编订经典；此外，这些博士还参与制定帝国的礼仪、撰写铭文。激怒秦始皇大开杀戒的，据说是两位“方士”，并没有证据表明有名有姓的儒家学者在秦时遇害。第三，秦与西汉初年的公文写作，频频引用《诗》、《书》。可见这些经典文本在宫廷中随手可得，而且从出土文献对经典的引用情况来看，所谓“焚书”前后，经典学问的传承并没有任何改变。
“早期中国文学”为什么难写
我们所有的文本都是汉代开始有的文本。如果没有西汉末期的学术活动，尤其是刘向、刘歆、杨雄等等，可能我们不会有现在的这些“先秦文本”。比如要写周代的《诗经》，但我们实际关于周代《诗经》的资料并不多，而我们的《诗经》就是《毛诗》，是某一种对《诗经》诠释的文本。如果没有《毛诗》对文字训诂的注解，就很难读懂《国风》。所以写这篇文章最大的问题是：一方面我要写一种连续性的、历史性的，有发展和过程的文学史，这里面是时间的逻辑。但同时我们也应该意识到，我们做不到上述这点，因为对原始形态的了解已经受到后来的影响，所以我们不能直接从早到晚写一条线，这是一种幻想。我们应该明白包括出土文献，像上博、郭店等等，那是公元前300年左右的文本，也不是这些文本的原始形态，所以我经常从后面来讲前面，我的这篇文章整个结构也有这个道理，困难也就是在这儿。
附：《剑桥中国文学史》（上卷）目录
本卷目次
第一章 早期中国文学：开端至西汉 柯马丁
第二章 东汉至西晋(25—317) 康达维
第三章 从东晋到初唐（317-649） 田晓菲
第四章 文化唐朝（650-1020） 宇文所安
第五章 北宋（1020——1126） 艾朗诺
第六章 北与南：十二与十三世纪 傅君劢 林顺夫
第七章 金末至明初文学：约1230—约1375 奚如谷
请支持独立网站，转发请注明本文链接：
http://www.guancha.cn/culture/2013_07_20_159735_s.shtml
Last edited by zzz19760225 on 2017-6-20 at 23:16 ]
The Crisis of Chinese People's Self - awareness 43L --- "Cambridge History of Chinese Literature" to be published at the end of this month, all authors are American scholars
2013 - 07 - 18 kircheis 41905 39 18
Article Introduction
And the traditional society does not cultivate people's self - awareness. It restrains individual desires and suppresses instinctive self - interest. Self - awareness is a product of modern freedom concepts. It is a bit like opening a window for you while the door must be locked from the inside. Without self - awareness, there is no true freedom, or that kind of "freedom" is just low - level self - interest. Self - awareness is the first course of freedom. Without this taste, one cannot enjoy the feast of freedom.
Text Content
There is a French program that picked several young and middle - aged men and women, dropped them in a strange country, with no money, and asked them to do a thing or complete a journey. In mainland China, no matter in Beijing or in remote towns, they could find people willing to help them with food, accommodation and transportation without spending a penny, and there was never a time when they went hungry or slept under the stars. But in Hong Kong, no one paid attention to them at all. The only person who invited them to have a meal was a mainland Chinese businessman. But ----
In the modern society of strangers, abiding by public behavior rules is the bottom line that makes this ruthless world bearable. To do this, one must restrain a little self - interest. People with strong self - awareness are good at covering up, while those with weak self - awareness do not cover up. Because self - awareness is not the same as instinctive self - interest, but is the awareness of the relationship between oneself and the environment. That is to say, self - awareness is connected with attribute awareness. Otherwise, it is just instinctive self - interest.
And the traditional society does not cultivate people's self - awareness. It restrains individual desires and suppresses instinctive self - interest. Self - awareness is a product of modern freedom concepts. It is a bit like opening a window for you while the door must be locked from the inside. Without self - awareness, there is no true freedom, or that kind of "freedom" is just low - level self - interest. Self - awareness is the first course of freedom. Without this taste, one cannot enjoy the feast of freedom.
The traditional society does not strengthen self - awareness because once it is generated, people's authenticity disappears. One can only see this clearly after living in the West for a long time. Modern people's self - awareness is obtained at the cost of authenticity, not for free. The society that has already obtained the collective superiority of modern people starts from despising authenticity, and often throws authenticity away as if it were dirty water, along with the baby inside. As early as the end of the 19th century, Westerners who had transitioned to a society of strangers, with their already domesticated collective superiority, came to the "East" that had not been domesticated. While despising the natives who were different in every move, especially those lacking self - awareness, they also realized that they had completely and forever lost the authenticity in the natives.
I remember a few years ago I accidentally fell into a French TV entertainment program because it involved China, so I watched it. The program was called "Beijing Express", which was to pick several young and middle - aged French men and women, drop them in a strange country, with no money on them, and ask them to do a thing or complete a journey. The purpose of the program was first to see how the French people coped with difficulties (lack of money exacerbated the survival dilemma) when they knew nothing (including language) about the other world, and second to see the attitude of the people in this strange country towards foreigners who needed help but could not pay (in France, there are many TV programs with similar ideas, especially liking to enjoy the magnanimity of "the East"). They traveled a lot in mainland China, including modern cities and poor villages. No matter in Beijing or in remote towns, they could find people willing to help them with food, accommodation and transportation without spending a penny, and there was never a time when they went hungry or slept under the stars, although the Chinese people they met rarely smiled at strangers (it was not because of inherent bad nature but because of the lack of domestication of the separation of private behavior and public behavior). Especially in the remote countryside, a group of extremely poor people really believed that they had no money on them (in fact, they had money prepared in case of emergency), and each person took out all the money they had and pooled a sum of money for them. But they not only continued to pretend to have no money, but also felt annoyed that these Chinese locals did not know how to leave privacy space for others, and围观 and followed them. The next episode of this program went to Hong Kong. The shortcomings of the locals all disappeared, and the advantages of the locals also disappeared. No one围观 them, and no one followed them. It was impossible to find free food, accommodation and transportation. The only person who invited them to have a meal was a mainland Chinese businessman (I recognized it from the accent). At night, they could only sleep on the street.
People who have thoroughly understood the outer shell of Western social manners and the inner core of cold - bloodedness, when they look back at the "East" society that still has some authenticity, will have a tolerance for the people who show their small self at any time due to lack of self - awareness, and also know what will replace these shortcomings, which is not from ideal to ideal. A few months ago, I was queuing up to check in at an airport in China. The line was long, but there were many windows, and it was not too slow. The people in the line were in good order. Then I saw an old man from the countryside walking past the side of the line, heading straight to the front of the line as if no one was there. I stopped him and told him that everyone was queuing up, and it was not allowed to go from the side to the front. From his embarrassed silly smile and his immediate retreat, I saw that he just realized that it was necessary to abide by the rules to join this stranger's line. Now the people who often make a big fuss in public places when they encounter something unpleasant are not these so - called locals still immersed in the traditional society, but the big and small upstarts in the city full of "rights" fluff. They are the disabled who cannot digest freedom because of lack of self - awareness.
Later, I met a group of peasant tourists in the waiting hall. It seemed that they were going somewhere collectively. They were huddled together playing cards in the relatively quiet waiting hall, just like playing at their own home, and laughing and talking loudly without hiding. I went up to remind them that this was a public place. They were not unhappy and immediately lowered their voices, but after a while, they forgot. From these peasants who had not yet stepped out of the traditional society, I did not see absolute self - interest and incurable problems, but lack of domestication.
I found that these two things had a common feature, that is, the parties all understood and dealt with the relationship between oneself and the external world based on instinct and habit. They did not understand that in the modern society, under all the connected appearances, oneself and the outside world are isolated. Because they did not understand this isolation, they also did not understand what maintains together the isolated individuals. At this time, "together" is the unified norm in public places. Having realized this, when you look at Westerners again, you will find that every move, every frown and smile of them is keeping the proper measure. Even their carefree demeanor is directed by the heart. The unconscious willfulness is far less than that of "the East" people. All their efforts are to maintain the isolation. Their own society has this kind of insurance lock, and then sprays the fragrance of freedom to decorate the "禁闭室", but sells the fragrance to the "East" which has no insurance lock at all, making the people who fall into chaos after being smoked by the fragrance look down on themselves to the extreme.
The authenticity of the traditional society not only comes from weak self - awareness, but also from the fact that people do not need to have two sets of behaviors: private behavior and public behavior. At that time, a person's life behavior did not need to be completed in a strange world, and often the life square did not exceed several kilometers. The complete separation of private behavior and public behavior is the result of industrialization, urbanization and citizenization. It requires the life of two or more generations of citizens, and more importantly, the conscious domestication by the superstructure that is aware of this.
By reading this, we have understood what the things that Chinese scholars have envied for more than a hundred years and hated themselves for not having actually are, and we have generally known the path to obtain them. Next, let's take a look at the true teachings in these two Western learning masterpieces. In addition to laying the foundation for the modern free society, there is another side. In the West where there has long been a religious exclusive tradition, the ruling group has used the carefully strengthened self - awareness and collective superiority to deal a fatal blow to other civilizations for two hundred years.
Collective superiority is a good thing within, but not necessarily outside. The "East" people who have lived in the West for a long time, after first tasting the outer shell of manners, gradually taste its bitter inner core. That is, collective superiority is often directly proportional to the narrowness and aggressiveness towards the outside. It can be said that they rise and fall together. People who have tasted it even have a逆反心理. They feel that it is better to be with the people who are directly bad than to be受这种 roundabout bad, not only because the degree of bad is different, but also because the degree of injury is smaller. If self - awareness is an indispensable internal balance in the modern "individual freedom" society, when it condenses into collective superiority, it becomes a sharp knife towards the outside. In the West where there is no deep cultural tradition (because of historical interruption caused by religious belief), operating collective superiority not only relies on one foot of maintaining public behavior standards, but also on the other foot of creating identification and exclusion and establishing external opposites. This superiority is different from the natural superiority of the ancient advanced civilization towards the backward civilization. It is not conservative but aggressive. It is a spiritual track specially designed for stepping on the opposite side, and is part of directing the world which is complementary to conquering the world. This track has been paved into the heart of the different civilization with the steps of conquest, and has triggered reverse racism in almost all places where there is no corresponding collective superiority to defend oneself. For more than a hundred years, the "Westernized elites" in China have not escaped this spiritual track, because this is the threshold to enter another world, and they are unconsciously even unconsciously led up. The Japanese who squeezed into the ruler's "club" first as thugs is also pulled by this spiritual track.
This sharp knife divides the world into two parts, one side is "savage" and the other side is "civilized". If the lead in industrialization and military strength is not enough to break the spiritual backbone of a defeated civilization, this unprecedented cutting has completely knocked the loser to the ground, and dug a big gap that is almost impossible to close on the body of each civilization. For more than a hundred years, it is the fact that the superstructure of China has almost unanimously accepted the moral卑贱ness of Chinese civilization, which has led this civilization to collapse step by step. And a large part of the reasons for acceptance are not the backwardness of military and industry, but from this fatal gap. Because under the psychological offensive of Western collective superiority, we have unconsciously accepted deep - rooted self - denial. This is a self - denial without a return path. This inertial spiritual track has input positive and negative thinking unconsciously, and under the guidance of this thinking watershed, objective rationality automatically gives up self - defense. The rare reverse prejudice in the world has become a habitual thinking orientation, which controls people's judgment ability on themselves and the outside world, and reverses people's vision.
The key is that people are completely unaware of this psychological offensive, and do not know that the hand directing the public opinion is premeditated and organized. The "East" placed on this operating table not only suffers military occupation and economic secession, but also suffers psychological fission unconsciously. The Western ruling group secretly uses "removing collective superiority" (which natural has in some civilizations with deep traditional culture) and "creating collective superiority" (creating identification and exclusion) to split other people's territories, operating superiority and卑贱ness in the world to direct the world and pave the way for conquest. And this psychological planning that takes a long time is mostly not noticed by the conquered people. The contempt of Hong Kong citizens for mainland Chinese people (the so - called Hong Kong identity), and the psychological barrier of Taiwan people calling themselves Chinese, seem to be spontaneous, but actually are captured by this spiritual track. The "group" is very sophisticated in doing this. It can make people in a certain place regard卑贱ness as dignity by psychological manipulation. On the surface, it is to despise that the opposite side does not have the courtesy (unified standard public behavior) that they have learned, but actually it is the作怪 of the sense of boundary.
Not long ago, I saw a travel documentary from a Canadian TV station. Such programs in the West generally have a kind of formula, which I call the "dividing formula", specially used for "hostile countries". As long as it is a country they regard as an opponent, even if it is traveling, it is pre - set with this framework in advance. Therefore, this program has a guide in advance, that is, Hong Kong must be separated from the mainland. Just like the previous episode of this travel documentary that visited Vancouver where Chinese people gathered in Canada, when talking about Chinese cuisine, a reporter picked out the best Chinese restaurant in his eyes. Guess where the chef is from? A Japanese - French mixed - race person. This title cannot be attributed to pure Chinese people, especially mainland Chinese people, unless it is a mainland Chinese person who secretly surrenders or openly opposes China. As long as you understand this kind of "dividing formula" I said, you can basically see the routine under the words of what they will do wherever they go.
Sure enough, as soon as they arrived in Hong Kong, the reporter first invited a guide: a British Reuters correspondent in Hong Kong. From this set of techniques for creating discourse, we will find that firmly controlling the discourse power starts from strictly controlling the right of interpretation. To travel in Hong Kong, find a guide, do not find a Hong Kong person, and the right to interpret Hong Kong still has to be in the hands of the British. This is even more the case for their reports on mainland China. No matter what field, even in the purely technical field, such as archaeology, the final right of interpretation will not be handed over to Chinese experts. Recently, I saw a TV documentary about Chinese ancient civilization on France 5 TV. To be honest, it has been very positive (it's just that every time the camera returns to contemporary China, it always focuses on the poor and dirty corners). I have never seen such a thing before. It must be to answer the doubts of many French people about China's "sudden prosperity", because under long - term deception, China has been the epitome of poverty and backwardness. How did it become a rich master? So the purpose of this film is to admit that Chinese ancient civilization was still developed. But when talking about Chinese Shang, Zhou, and Qin dynasties, Chinese experts only have the right of interpretation for some specific archaeological details, and the overall right of interpretation is not handed over to the Japanese but transferred to the French.
The final impression is that although your ancient civilization is extraordinary, you are just like the Egyptians today or the Maya who have disappeared. The research and interpretation of Egyptian and Maya ancient civilizations still have to rely on us Westerners. This kind of domination is generally not seen by the Chinese people, because it is very skillful, but it is "dominated" to the root and "dominated" to the extreme. The freedom of the West is mostly controlled by this kind of "domination and tyranny". The exclusive right of interpretation is a very clever cover - up for Western - style dictatorship. This method of ensuring core power is a bit like hiding and protecting private behavior with public behavior standards. Democratic forms and freedom of speech are similar to public behavior rules. Everyone tries to abide by them, but they do not touch the core power. The tolerance, openness, sharing, transparency, relativity and rationality of the former do not affect the narrowness, closure, domination, concealment, absoluteness and irrationality of the latter at all. This extreme duality of Westerners' nature is almost completely extended to their system, which is also the reason why we have been kept in the dark for two hundred years when dealing with the West. So we look at people and only regard the individual's surface public behavior as the whole, look at society and only see the outside but not the inside, and even do not know the existence of the inside at all. Of course, this double - layer ruling model inside and outside is not feasible everywhere. It needs the historical tradition and social foundation that the people consciously靠拢 to the powerful right of interpretation.
Speaking of which, the British journalist who was entrusted with the great task of the right of interpretation really cooperated tacitly. He immediately set the framework for the documentary according to the "dividing formula", and also brought his Hong Kong girlfriend to support from the side. When the Hong Kong woman appeared, she was still called a Chinese by the Canadian reporter, but she was quite unhappy and specially emphasized that she was a Hong Kong person, not a Chinese. She probably did not know that this was just the performance of weak self - awareness in the eyes of Westerners. People always call themselves Hong Kong people to stab China in the back. In essence, they will not regard you as a person other than a Chinese (the fact that the UK refused to give British passports to Hong Kong people in 1997 is a clear proof). Deliberately creating the collective superiority of Hong Kong people (compared with mainland China) has a hidden sinister intention, just like the operation of creating collective superiority for Taiwan people, Tibetans, and Mongolians (the fact that the Japanese - invested film about Genghis Khan was nominated for the best foreign language film at the Oscars is within the plan, not for art at all, and every link, even cross - national, is well coordinated). Western various "international" media and cultural institutions are sparing no effort and material resources to do this long - lasting relay. If corresponding measures are not taken to stop this long - planned, never - stopping, and unremitting psychological secession war, defeat is only a matter of time.
In order to have moral reasons for their卑贱 behavior, this Hong Kong woman began to criticize the mainland more fiercely than her British lover, nothing more than the food being "poisonous" (specially emphasizing the food health in Hong Kong, as if the agricultural and sideline products in Hong Kong were not supplied by the mainland), the air being "poisonous" (as if the mainland and Hong Kong were not connected by mountains and waters), and product counterfeiting (forgetting that Hong Kong is a big source), etc., which have become the "chorus" of that kind of thing.
The more "elites" who are deeply embedded in the weaknesses of the Chinese people (weak self - awareness) are, the less distance they can maintain from the object of scrutiny (both inside and outside), so their vision is so narrow and their views are so extreme. The above - mentioned Hong Kong woman who thought she had joined the Western ranks only learned to step on her own people when learning "self - awareness", but did not really learn the self - awareness of Westerners. That kind of self - awareness takes the bond between the individual and the group as the thinking track. How could she speak ill of her own people in front of foreigners?
Under such secret attacks, strengthening self - awareness and collective superiority by oneself has become a self - defense and self - strengthening weapon as important as military self - defense. Two centuries of turmoil and chaos (external powerful countries dominating or side - guiding external suppression and internal consumption), this country has not only been hollowed out physically, but also the spirit has been sucked up. First - class thinkers have been marginalized, the superstructure has become a feast for third - and fourth - rate imitators. In addition, capitalization itself is to knock down the spiritual head of a civilization. Thirty years of family planning has also led to a sharp decrease in high - quality population, resulting in intellectual weakening and spiritual depression.
The traditional society constructs social groups by restraining personal desires. In the modern society with rampant self - interest, if self - awareness is not strengthened, there will be social chaos and materialism, making the inherently disorderly capital competition society more disorderly. Chinese society is at this critical juncture. The traditional moral education has collapsed. The already weak self - awareness has not only not been strengthened but also been lost with the falling traditional society. The most可怕 thing in a society without self - awareness self - discipline and moral decay is not social disorder, but that the superstructure lacks self - awareness, is swallowed up by the self - interest instinct, leading to the inversion of the selection mechanism, falling into a vicious circle, high - quality people being eliminated, the system gradually being occupied by incompetent scoundrels, responsibilities, principles, and precepts being a mere formality, loyalty being lost, and villains being in power.
External pressure plus internal hollowing out, the pace of civilization disintegration will accelerate. When the upper - class collective unconscious enters the folk subconscious level, no matter whether the aesthetic right and moral right are recovered or not, it is irreparable.
Please support the independent website. When forwarding, please indicate the link of this article:
http://www.guancha.cn/bianqin/2013_07_18_159274_2.shtml
Guo Jishi: The Hypocritical Brainwashing Behind the Western Praise of Malala 2013 - 07 - 19 15:55 Global Network 50 Font Size: TT
Article in Hong Kong's "Ming Pao" on July 19, original title: The Hypocritical Brainwashing Behind the Western Praise of Malala. Less than a week after the brave girl Malala went to the United Nations Headquarters to defend women's right to education last week, Rashid, a high - level member of the Pakistani Taliban, suddenly released a public letter to Malala, claiming to be shocked by her being shot and seriously injured last year, claiming that the Taliban does not oppose anyone, including girls, to receive education. Malala became the target of the Taliban gunman's attack because she promoted anti - Taliban smear propaganda, and also called on her to return to Pakistan to receive Islamic and Pashto cultural education in any Islamic girls' school.
Taliban public letter propaganda counterattack
As many comments pointed out, Rashid did not apologize in the letter at all. However, he claimed that he hoped the incident had never happened, which is probably the truth - because Malala survived the shooting, and instead became the most powerful propaganda weapon for Western governments and public opinion to strongly criticize the Pakistani Taliban. Rashid released the public letter, the object was not Malala herself, but to try to make a propaganda war counterattack for Muslims everywhere.
Malala's determination to defend women's right to education is worthy of praise and support from the world; the attack of radicals on children and educational facilities should also be strongly condemned. But behind the Western politicians, leaders and even the mainstream public opinion in praising Malala, is there also a hidden political water - pumping subtext?
Westerners choose to value the girl who volunteers to save the world
Assed Baig, a Pakistani columnist in the UK, recently talked about the hypocrisy behind the Western government and media in praising Malala. He mentioned another Iraqi girl who was rarely known by Western politicians and media - Abeer Qassim Hamza al - Janabi, who was only 14 years old when she died. In 2006, 5 US soldiers stationed in Iraq gang - raped her, and then killed her and her family, including her 6 - year - old sister. However, unlike Malala, there is no international anniversary named after her, the United Nations has never mentioned her, and former UK Prime Minister Brown has never vowed to do something for her like for Malala.
There is indeed a world of difference between the Western politicians' and public opinion's attention to Malala and their attitude towards the harm to women and children in Iraq and Afghanistan over the years, and even the current continuous drone bombing in Pakistan and other places to execute bombings and wantonly kill the innocent.
Behind this selective attention, there is indeed a set of brainwashing propaganda subtext: in order to save women and children and help girls like Malala, NATO and the US military should continue military operations in Pakistan and other places. Although the colonial era has long ended, the Western society still retains the white man's burden thinking of the 19th century (it is euphemistically called helping the people outside the colonies to move towards modern civilization, but actually it is to claim its own interests under the guise of morality). Malala's story just perfectly fits into this thinking - Malala fought against extreme Islam and was persecuted, and then was saved by Westerners as white knights, and得以 continue the educational struggle. Assed Baig's view that Malala's discourse has been hijacked by the Western white savior complex is not without reason.
"Cambridge History of Chinese Literature" is one of the series of national history of literature of Cambridge University Press. This series is divided into two volumes, upper and lower, with 1.375 million words each, respectively edited by Stephen Owen and Kang Yi. The authors include more than a dozen famous American sinologists, such as Martin Kern, David R. Knechtges, Xiaofei Tian, Stephen Owen, Ronald Egan, Michael Nylan, Shuen - fu Lin, Stephen H. West (upper volume); Kang Yi, Lily Xiao Hong Lee, Wei Shang, Wilt Idema, David Der - wei Wang, Michelle Yeh (lower volume), etc. The whole book introduces the development process of Chinese literature for three thousand years from the ancient oral literature, inscriptions on metal and stone to the eve of the founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949 in a chronological rather than literary form, and the stories about writing in Chinese culture - writing is not only a tool for national rule, but also a cultural medium outside the country. Each chapter presents different narrative features due to the different academic and expression styles of the authors.
In the process of writing "Cambridge History of Chinese Literature", the whole team has invested a lot of energy in translating the title and terms. Unfortunately, this part of efforts cannot be shown in the Chinese translation.
The Life·读书·新知三联书店 introduced and published the simplified Chinese version of "Cambridge History of Chinese Literature"
Borges once fictionalized a 19th - century writer named Pierre Menard, who rewrote Cervantes' famous work "Don Quixote" in a foreign language. "That is a technique of intentionally creating anachronisms and random attribution," Borges wrote.
A group of American sinologists practiced Borges' concept in a "relay race" of rewriting the history of Chinese literature. "Borges' 'Pierre Menard, Author of Don Quixote' walks with us all the way," Stephen Owen, one of the editors - in - chief and a professor at Harvard University, wrote in the preface to the upper volume of the "Cambridge History of Chinese Literature" (Cambridge History of Chinese Literature) that is about to be published in the mainland.
In this new history of literature positioned as a "history of literary culture", the more than a dozen American sinologists participating in the writing are all looking for the traces of the above - mentioned "Pierre Menard" and trying to make him visible. He is elusive, playing multiple roles, from the early inscriptions in the late 2nd millennium BC to the online literature in 2005 (the simplified Chinese version is up to the eve of the founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949), especially the literature before the popularization of printing. Kang Yi, a professor at Yale University, wrote the chapter "Literature in the Early and Middle Ming Dynasties", and "Pierre Menard" disguised as Li Kaixian, one of the "Eight Talents of the Jiajing Period".
Just as Pierre Menard rewrote "Don Quixote" with excitement, this history of literature written by an all - star team is full of passion and boldness, exploration and insight, and also breaks many historical views that are difficult to break away from due to deep - rooted accumulation in the traditional Chinese history and culture. It can make us re - examine the civilization forged by Chinese characters, and let us start from each text.
All American scholars
Stephen Owen, Martin Kern, David Der - wei Wang, Shang Wei... These people get together and run a relay race.
Does the "Pierre Menard rule" apply to the history of Chinese literature for thousands of years?
"In the past, the history of literature only told us that 'The Orchid Pavilion Rain' and 'The Palace of Han Autumn' are Yuan operas. But few people know that their final versions were not in the Yuan Dynasty. Until the Ming Dynasty in the 16th century, Li Kaixian rewrote them into the current form. We should give Li Kaixian a great credit." Kang Yi told reporters that the history of Chinese literature is actually a continuous rewriting of the past.
From the interpretation of "The Book of Songs" to the shaping of Qu Yuan's image, from Su Shi's rewriting of Tao Qian's poetry to the afterlife of Du Fu, the power of "Pierre Menard" is very great. He preserves and combines texts according to his own interests and value orientations, and also reshapes the texts of predecessors according to his own concepts.
But in the previous framework of the history of Chinese literature, it is very difficult to find the trace of "Pierre Menard". Jiang Yin, a researcher at the Institute of Literature, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and director of the Ancient Literature Research Office, believes that this is closely related to the way of seeing problems between China and the West. "In the past, when we studied literature, we would accept literary works as established facts, and works are the creations of writers." But Western sinologists pay more attention to the concept of text. A past text has been passed down to the present, and has gone through a series of complex intermediary processes, "and the relationship with the author has also become less certain."
At the end of this month, "Cambridge History of Chinese Literature" co - edited by Stephen Owen and Kang Yi will be introduced and published by the Life·读书·新知三联书店. The origin can be traced back to ten years ago.
On October 2003, Sun Kangyi received an email from Linda Bree, the general editor of the "Cambridge History of Literature" series of Cambridge University Press, hoping that she could host the writing of a "single - volume, best - selling - looking Cambridge History of Chinese Literature". Before that, three national history of literature had been published in this series, namely "Cambridge History of Russian Literature" (1989), "Cambridge History of Italian Literature" (1996) and "Cambridge History of German Literature" (1997), all of which were warmly welcomed by readers.
"Is it possible to rewrite the history of literature, especially the history of Chinese literature?" Sun Kangyi told reporters that her mood was very complicated after receiving the letter. On the one hand, the "Cambridge History of China" that had been planned since 1966 had gone through half a century of writing and had formed a complete series of more than a dozen volumes, but there had never been a "Cambridge History of Chinese Literature"; on the other hand, what excited her was that the "Cambridge History of Literature" divides the history of literature by age. In her impression, whether it is Wang Guowei's "History of Yuan Operas" or Lu Xun's "History of Chinese Novels", the classic history of literature is still based on literary genres. In the European and American sinology circles, there is also only the concept of Chinese poetry history, Chinese ci poetry history, Chinese novel history, Chinese drama history, and there is a lack of a comprehensive history of literature thinking. "Even the way American universities hire literature professors is based on literary genres. Although I study a very wide range of fields, the tag of my position is 'classical poetry'." Sun Kangyi is the first Malcolm G. Chace '56 Professor of East Asian Languages and Literature at Yale University, and her main research fields are Chinese classical literature, lyrical poetry, gender studies, etc. She is worried that once sinologists get used to specializing in a certain literary genre, they will ignore other literary genres of the same era. Moreover, the volume of the history of Chinese literature is much larger than that of Russia, Germany and Italy, and a single - volume book may not be able to accommodate it.
Sun Kangyi
Unexpectedly, the publisher replied that it was willing to make an exception for the history of Chinese literature alone, not limited to a single volume. The project is huge, and Sun Kangyi began to invite friends of sinologists in the United States. What she did not expect was that within two days of sending the invitation email, top scholars including Stephen Owen, Martin Kern, David Der - wei Wang, and Shang Wei all readily agreed.
"We really need such a book very much." When talking about the motivation for participating, Martin Kern, the director of the Department of East Asian Studies at Princeton University, recalled that in 2001, Columbia University Press had published a "Columbia History of Chinese Literature", but this history of literature based on literary genres rather than age was pieced together by 40 to 50 small articles. "There is no connection between the articles, and it also does not reflect the historical narrative." Martin Kern wrote a book review specifically for this, and severely criticized the "collection of papers" - style history of literature.
In view of this, Sun Kangyi hopes that readers can read "Cambridge History of Chinese Literature" from the beginning to the end like reading a novel, driven by interest. Her definition of the reader group is also - ordinary but with a certain amount of knowledge, and hopes that this book will become an undergraduate textbook for East Asian history and literature courses in the Western world.
Finally, Sun Kangyi gathered 17 American sinologists to participate in the compilation. So, an old European university press has gathered a team of "all - American" university professors. Martin Kern explained that this just illustrates the current situation of Western sinology. Although he obtained a doctorate in sinology at the University of Cologne in Germany, there are almost no scholars in Europe who study ancient Chinese literature. The only young professor who does classical literature research at the University of Frankfurt in Germany is also a student he taught at Princeton. And in the research of unearthed documents, European sinology is stronger. "Especially in Germany, it has obvious advantages in philology. This is because the climax of the German humanistic tradition is philology."
Sun Kangyi said that she had also considered her old friend Gu Bin, "but he is writing a history of Chinese literature in German and is fully occupied, so he has no time to help me." As for the well - known Swedish sinologist Lothar von Falkenhausen, Sun Kangyi considered that he was not interested in writing the history of literature, so she did not invite him. "It's not a matter of the difference between Europe and America, but whether these people are suitable to get together and run a relay race."
Breaking the division by dynasties
Martin Kern insisted that "early Chinese texts" should be written until the Western Han Dynasty, and David Der - wei Wang redefined the beginning of "modern".
Since it is a relay race, the把握 of the rhythm of the start, transition and conclusion, and where each author takes over, has become the top priority.
David Der - wei Wang
Regarding the periodization of the history of literature writing, Sun Kangyi frankly said that although every scholar who studies Chinese literature knows that the dynasty periodization method cannot fully describe the changes in the history of literature, it is deeply rooted and most current history of literature still uses this approach.
There are also examples of breaking the division by dynasties. For example, the "History of Chinese Literature" edited by Yuan Xingpei, a professor at Peking University, which is widely used in domestic universities, is based on the "three ancient seven periods" theory (that is, dividing the history of Chinese literature into the ancient period, the middle ancient period, and the near ancient period, and within the "three ancient", it can be further divided into seven periods).
But "Cambridge History of Chinese Literature" is more thorough. Martin Kern, who was first invited to write the first chapter, clearly told Sun Kangyi in the first reply that the premise of "joining the team" is that the "early Chinese literature" he is responsible for must include the Western Han Dynasty, otherwise he would rather not write it. In his opinion, the so - called "early Chinese texts" were actually formed in the process of "canonization" in the late Western Han Dynasty. Before that, there was not even the concept of "book" and "author". Martin Kern also pointed out from the perspective of textual research that the so - called culprit for the interruption of the spread of early texts - Emperor Qin Shihuang's "Burning Books and Burying Scholars" is just a traditional saying that "is conducive to constructing the identity of Confucian scholars". On the contrary, there was no change in the inheritance of classical learning before and after the so - called "Burning Books".
Sun Kangyi originally planned to use 1400 as the watershed between the upper and lower volumes. Because "in the 'Cambridge History of Literature' series, the already published histories of Russian, German and Italian literature are mostly from around 1400. And in the UK, this year the famous Chaucer died, and Boccaccio's 'The Decameron' also appeared almost at the same time." But when it came to 1400 in China, she realized that deliberately pursuing this series "starting line" of 1400 was not faithful to history, "it is equivalent to cutting off Zhu Yuanzhang's waist." Finally, the lower volume chose 1375 (the founding year of the Ming Dynasty was 1368) as the starting point, with the reason that "in this year, Zhu Yuanzhang executed the poet Gao Qi, and started the Hongwu period with strict literary prohibitions and cruel executions. The generation of literati left over from the Yuan Dynasty was basically eliminated."
David Der - wei Wang, a famous contemporary history of literature scholar and a professor at Harvard University, redefined the beginning of "modern". He did not take the May 4th Movement as the beginning of Chinese modernity, nor did he use 1840, but chose the special year of 1841. In the midsummer of this year, the scholar and poet Gong Zizhen died suddenly in Dangyang Academy in Jiangsu. In David Der - wei Wang's words, "This chapter does not intend to regard the May 4th Literary Revolution and its subsequent events as a one - way linear development, but to focus on regarding the modernity of Chinese literature as a long and tortuous process, and to trace its beginning back to the middle of the 19th century."
For the interception and amplification of the above - mentioned historical details, Sun Kangyi believes that this makes the narrative of the history of literature more dramatic, just like the close - up shots of a movie. She told Nan Du that Harvard University has started to plan a set of history of literature recently, and David Der - wei Wang, who is responsible for the modern history of Chinese literature, is using this method to design. Sun Kangyi was also invited to write the sub - volume of the history of literature in the "white terror" period in Taiwan, "starting with the 'February 28 Incident' at the beginning, the scene of the National Government sending troops to massacre the people in Taiwan."
A personalized history of literature
The foundation of deconstructionism, the writing of literary culture history, the argumentation of the history of literature...
This year, Sun Kangyi has been teaching at Yale for the 32nd year. In 1982, when she arrived at Yale, Stephen Owen, who had been teaching at Yale for 10 years, had just transferred to Harvard. In the 1980s, under the influence of Derrida's讲学 in the United States, deconstructionism replaced the dominance of the New Criticism, and Yale became an important town of deconstructionist literary criticism in the United States. Sun Kangyi said that including Harold Bloom, the "four gangsters of Yale" of deconstructionism were all teachers of Stephen Owen, so "Stephen Owen has been a 'product of Yale' from going to school to getting a doctorate and teaching." And when Sun Kangyi "defected" from the structuralist camp at Princeton University to Yale, she was unconsciously influenced by deconstructionism - literature is no longer a closed structure of "reader" and "author".
Different from Harold Bloom's emphasis on canonization including individual writers, in "Cambridge History of Chinese Literature", Sun Kangyi pays more attention to a tendency or trend, such as paying more attention to how the past literature was filtered and reconstructed by later generations.
In 2008, Stephen Owen published the article "History in History" in "Reading" magazine, focusing on analyzing the historical view of "Cambridge History of Chinese Literature": a history of literary culture, which not only emphasizes the historicity of the text, but also the textuality of history.
In order to explain this somewhat convoluted judgment that "authors and readers write and read in the imaginary history of literature narrative that is indispensable for writing and reading", Stephen Owen made a scenario assumption: if you find that a certain Tang poem was actually written in the Ming Dynasty, or a certain sonnet of the Elizabethan era was written in the 1930s, you will feel deceived. "The poem itself has not changed, but the way you understand the poem has changed."
After reading this article, Jiang Yin, a researcher at the Institute of Literature, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and director of the Ancient Literature Research Office, was very inspired and recommended it to the students in the Ancient Literature Research Office of the Institute of Literature, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. "Western sinologists are very concerned about the process of text generation, the so - called historical text of the text itself. But in China, especially in the field of classical literature research, we accept literary works as established facts. Literary works are the creations of writers, just like a chicken laying an egg."
Jiang Yin explained to reporters that behind the different expressions of "literary works" and "texts" is the different position of the Chinese and Western academic circles in understanding historical phenomena. Domestic scholars often base their view of their own history or literary knowledge on the deeply ingrained understanding accumulated over many years. For example, when it comes to Qu Yuan, one will naturally think of the "Biography of Qu Yuan" in "Records of the Historian" and the narrative in Jia Yi's "Lament for Qu Yuan". "According to the way of writing history or writing history by people of the same country, we will be convinced that such things cannot be fictional."
In Martin Kern's analysis, Qu Yuan is "the prototype of a poet driven by unbearable despair". And "Li Sao" "from the very beginning, has been regarded as the tragic biography of the supposed author Qu Yuan. Since Jia Yi's 'Lament for Qu Yuan', this text has been regarded as an elegy for the talented people who are ignored and exiled. During the Han Dynasty, Liu An, Sima Qian, Liu Xiang, Yang Xiong, Liang Song, Ban Gu, Wang Yi and others all contributed to this interpretation."
Regarding the uncertainty of historical knowledge contained in "history of literary culture", Sun Kangyi emphasized that because the initial reader group is English readers, this approach is completely in line with Westerners' cognition. On the other hand, she believes that the rejection of uncertainty by Chinese audiences is related to "euhemerization" (myth historicization). "Chinese people like to elevate 'fictional' things to 'history' - for example, the 'historical' stories of Yao, Shun and Yu. It seems that certainty finds a sense of security. So some sinologists think that Chinese civilization is the most standard example of 'euhemerization'." Sun Kangyi is also very clear about the weakness of "history of literary culture". This doctrine emphasizes the narrative with theoretical color and loses the fun of literature mainly for appreciation.
Although unified under the general framework of "history of literary culture", "Cambridge History of Chinese Literature" is after all a narrative history of literature, and the style differences of each author are relatively large. In Jiang Yin's view, the two chapters "Eastern Han to Western Jin (25 - 317)" by David R. Knechtges and "From the Eastern Jin to the Early Tang Dynasty (317 - 649)" by Xiaofei Tian are more in line with the general writing of the history of literature, with the purpose of providing readers with complete and reliable knowledge. And the "early Chinese literature" chapter by Martin Kern is much beyond the general common sense knowledge, and the writing is more like a history of literature theory. "Strictly speaking, the history of literature is narrative, and it is the accepted and recognized knowledge, so it does not need to be argued. But a personalized history of literature must need argumentation."
About the periodization of early Chinese literature (narrated by Martin Kern)
In "Cambridge History of Chinese Literature", we do not say "pre - Qin and Han dynasties". The Han Dynasty is of course a traditional concept, but I think the Western Han Dynasty and the Eastern Han Dynasty are very different, so the periodization of this chapter is from the Shang Dynasty to the late Western Han Dynasty. This periodization is my research experience for more than ten years.
In 1996, I obtained a doctorate in sinology at the University of Cologne, and the next year I went to the United States to start researching the Western Han Dynasty. I found that "wen" in early China means "writing as culture". Originally, it referred to "patterns" of various forms in nature and human activities. Before the imperial period, "wen" was not only used to refer to "articles", but also widely used to refer to "cultural achievements", especially to refer to "patterns" in ceremonial manners, ceremonial performances, including music and material decoration. It was not until the late Western Han Dynasty that "wen" was mainly used to refer to "writing". This change is not only in the change of word meaning: it symbolizes the overall migration of the cultural core from ceremonial to textual expression, which leads to the emergence of the cultural history of written texts, and at the same time, the emergence of institutions that maintain this written text, the most important of which is the imperial bureaucratic system and the civil service examination system. Interestingly, several sinologists in different fields used their own specialties and materials to reach the same conclusion.
In the late Western Han Dynasty, Emperor Cheng of the Han Dynasty asked Liu Xiang to sort out and collate the court collections and compile the royal library catalog "Bielu". Around 6 BC, his son Liu Xin abbreviated and revised "Bielu" into "Qilue"; at the end of the 1st century AD, Ban Gu further abbreviated "Qilue" into "Artificial Annals·Bureau of Education". "Bielu" is by no means an objective and complete record. It is absolutely a selective and standardized perspective on the text heritage. Because according to all the unearthed documents from the Warring States Period, about 90% have no corresponding传世 copies, only a few works are related to "Artificial Annals·Bureau of Education".
About "Burning Books and Burying Scholars"
I specially wrote a book "Qin Shihuang's Inscriptions - Texts and Meanings in the Representation of the Early Chinese Empire", which was published in 2000. At that time, I checked all the materials about "Burning Books and Burying Scholars" and found that this was a statement of the Eastern Han Dynasty. Before Sima Qian's "Records of the Historian", no document mentioned this incident; before Wei Hong's "Preface to 'Book of Documents'" (lost) in the 1st century AD, no document thought that Confucian scholars were the victims of this incident. As far as is known, the earliest condemnation of brutal Qin and "Burning Books and Burying Scholars" comes from the forged Kong Anguo version of "Book of Documents" that appeared in 317. Second, various early documents all record that the Qin court appointed "doctors" to study classics. In 213 BC, doctors were allowed to monopolize the research and teaching of classics, and perhaps also to compile classics; in addition, these doctors also participated in formulating the empire's rituals and writing inscriptions. It was said that it was two "alchemists" who angered Emperor Qin Shihuang and caused him to kill a large number of people. There is no evidence that famous and famous Confucian scholars were killed in the Qin Dynasty. Third, the official documents written in the Qin and early Western Han dynasties frequently quoted "Shi" and "Shu". It can be seen that these classic texts were easily available in the court, and from the situation of the reference of classics in unearthed documents, there was no change in the inheritance of classic learning before and after the so - called "Burning Books".
"Why is it difficult to write 'early Chinese literature'"
All our texts are texts from the Han Dynasty. If there were no academic activities in the late Western Han Dynasty, especially Liu Xiang, Liu Xin, Yang Xiong, etc., we might not have these "pre - Qin texts". For example, to write "The Book of Songs" of the Zhou Dynasty, but in fact, our materials about "The Book of Songs" of the Zhou Dynasty are not much, and our "The Book of Songs" is "Maoshi", which is a text of a certain interpretation of "The Book of Songs". If there were no annotation of "The Book of Songs" by "Maoshi" on the interpretation of characters, it would be difficult to understand "Guofeng". So the biggest problem in writing this article is: on the one hand, I want to write a continuous and historical history of literature with development and process, and there is a logical order of time in it. But at the same time, we should also be aware that we cannot do the above - mentioned point, because the understanding of the original form has been affected by later generations, so we cannot directly write a line from early to late, which is a fantasy. We should understand that including unearthed documents, like Shangbo, Guodian, etc., which are texts around 300 BC, are not the original forms of these texts, so I often talk about the front from the back. The whole structure of my article also has this reason, and the difficulty is here.
Appendix: Table of Contents of "Cambridge History of Chinese Literature" (Upper Volume)
Contents of this volume
Chapter 1 Early Chinese Literature: Beginning to the Western Han Dynasty Martin Kern
Chapter 2 Eastern Han to Western Jin (25 - 317) David R. Knechtges
Chapter 3 From the Eastern Jin to the Early Tang Dynasty (317 - 649) Xiaofei Tian
Chapter 4 Cultural Tang Dynasty (650 - 1020) Stephen Owen
Chapter 5 Northern Song Dynasty (1020 - 1126) Ronald Egan
Chapter 6 North and South: The 12th and 13th Centuries Michael Nylan, Shuen - fu Lin
Chapter 7 Literature from the End of the Jin Dynasty to the Early Ming Dynasty: About 1230 - About 1375 Stephen H. West
Please support the independent website. When forwarding, please indicate the link of this article:
http://www.guancha.cn/culture/2013_07_20_159735_s.shtml
Last edited by zzz19760225 on 2017 - 6 - 20 at 23:16 ]
